Harry Targ
(The New York Times is trying to link criticism of Israel's policy with antisemitism. The corporate media continues to create pro-US/Israeli narratives. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/16/us/jews-harvard-antisemitism-israel-war.html)
In early December three university presidents, all women, were called before a House of Representative Committee on Education to explain their defense of academic freedom and the first amendment on their campuses. President Claudine Gay, Harvard, when asked about whether claims of the calling for “the genocide of Jews” on her campus violated Harvard’s rules, she said “it depends on the context.” Of course, the claims about the calls on campus were never verified, and the politicians ignored the fact that President Gay was merely defending academic freedom and the first amendment’s right to freedom of speech.
While President Gay correctly was defending the
hallowed right of free speech and the university as a haven for the
“marketplace of ideas.” she correctly implied about the campus and free speech
in general that there were limits (the “context”).
As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes suggested about the
question of the first amendment to the constitution, freedom of speech is not
absolute. As he wrote in the famous Schenck versus the United States case in 1919, speech may be restricted when
“shouting fire in a crowded theater,” where there was a “clear and present
danger" that such speech could cause harm. In short, if words are contentious and stimulate debate on campuses they
should be protected. If, however, they have the potential to incitement to action
endangering people they can be restricted.
In the current case, the corporate media and lobby
groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the
Anti-Defamation League (ADL) are seeking to squash debate concerning Israel’s
war on Gaza and the US three billion dollar a year perpetual military aid to
Israel. Criticism of Israel’s brutal bombing of Gaza is defined as threatening
to Jewish students on campuses and more generally is defined as antisemitism.
These lobby groups refer to a much-criticized
definition of antisemitism prepared by the International Holocaust Remembrance
Alliance which said about antisemitism in part that manifestations might
include “the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish
collectivity.” Over one hundred Palestinian and Arab scholars and journalists
later responded to the IHRA statement on antisemitism by saying that “In
recent years, the fight against antisemitism has been increasingly
instrumentalised by the Israeli government and its supporters in an effort to
delegitimise the Palestinian cause and silence defenders of Palestinian rights.”
. The signatories claimed that linking criticism of Israel to antisemitism
“threatens to debase this struggle" against it.
Of course, thousands of Jews and peace groups such as
Jewish Voice for Peace, have reflected on Middle East history, the displacement
of Palestinians from their homeland in 1948 and the perpetual wars of Israel on
the West Bank and Gaza and neighboring countries, and have raised criticisms of
both Israeli policy and United States Middle East policy.
Older peace activists remember in the 1950s and
beyond, when criticism of United States foreign policy was labeled “communist.”
“pro-Soviet” and/or “subversive.” Educators were fearful of raising contentious
political issues in classes. Some of those that did lost jobs. Entertainers
were purged from television and Hollywood. And, with dissent stifled, the
United States found itself in ugly, brutal, and unwinnable wars in such places
as Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Debate and dissent remain critical for our
society. In short, debate about Israel and United States foreign policy toward
the Middle East is essential and criticism of either or both is not antisemitism.
